| Ali_16x said: Why are you talking about sales? |
Because are by the consumers, higher sales = more consumers that are able to buy the product.
As for the rest, i'll say it again.
First party games are not anti-consumer
Third party games are not anti-consumer
Third party exclusives are not anti-consumer if the studio themselves planned to release on a single platform all along.
Third party exclusives that were intended to release on multiple systems, but prevented from doing so as a direct result of exclusivity contracts, are anti-consumer.
Third party games that release on single platforms don't sell as many as third party games that release on multiple platforms.
Higher sales = more consumers who were able to purchase the game.
Ali_16x said:
No, the biggest reason why 3rd party exclusives happen is so consumers buy their consoles, literally. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Did you even read my post?
Let me lay it out for you real slow this time.
If a game was only ever going to release on the console it eventually releases on, it's not anti-consumer.
If the game was intended to release on another platform but the other versions are significantly delayed or scrapped as a result of a business deal, that is anti-consumer.
In the first, you are creating something that is both a bonus to your existing customers and a draw for other customers to buy into, or switch to your platform, they however never had the possibility of playing the game on the system they already own, so nothing has been lost.
In the second, you are removing something from the customerbase of your competitor for personal gain, placing a financial burden on those customers to enjoy the game they would otherwise have been able to buy on the console they already own. Actions that remove options from the consumer, are anti-consumer.
How you can think taking away potential future products from a market base, is somehow pro-consumer, is beyond me.
